Reopen #2081 as it is still an issue (was closed as stale, can't reopen myself)

[astyagun]

#2081

[drdaz]

Is there any way I can help debug this?

[docker-robott]

Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity.
Mark the issue as fresh with /remove-lifecycle stale comment.
Stale issues will be closed after an additional 30d of inactivity.

Prevent issues from auto-closing with an /lifecycle frozen comment.

If this issue is safe to close now please do so.

Send feedback to Docker Community Slack channels #docker-for-mac or #docker-for-windows.
/lifecycle stale

[thecodedrift]

/remove-lifecycle stale

This bug is still happening as of 18.09.0 (git 4d60db4)

• I have tried with the latest version of my channel (Stable or Edge)

• I have uploaded Diagnostics

• Diagnostics ID: 43B423E5-2F69-4C5E-97A4-6B156096A7F1/20181218025822

• OSX Version: 10.14.1 (18B75)

• Machine: MacBook Pro (Retina, 15-inch, Mid 2014)

• Is it reproducible? yes

• Is the problem new? no Docker consumes energy when no containers are running #2081

• Did the problem appear with an update? unsure

Edit - @astyagun are you running the Kubernetes containers by chance? By default, the kube containers won't show in docker ps unless you've opted in to "Show system containers". Kubernetes runs containers in the background that use hyperkit, and if #3065, #1759, and #2582 are any indication, that might be the culprit.

[astyagun]

are you running the Kubernetes containers by chance?

@jakobo Nope, no Kubernetes

[hovsater]

I'm seeing the same thing. Brand new MacBook Pro, running Mac OS 10.14.2. No containers running but Docker for Mac idle on about 10-12 in energy consumption. This is on version 2.0.0.0-mac81.

Diagnose ID: 6F446881-F1CA-4FCD-8225-45830FEFF07C/20190105075102

[balboah]

Same here, fresh install. No Kubernetes or any other custom settings other than defaults.
Diagnose ID: 9D0DD3DC-3ABE-4FFB-8B0A-8FB663830769/20190204195044

[t-patt]

+1
Diagnose ID: F9B6AC00-5131-4DB5-8A2E-FB2BC46600C3

[dougc84]

2018 MBP, 2.2 GHz i7, 16 GB RAM, constant 9 on energy impact when nothing is running. Hyperkit is using 6-7% CPU when nothing is running. I also allocate 4 GB RAM and Hyperkit is using 7.42 GB. Using Docker Desktop 2.0.0.3 w/ engine 18.09.2.

[gregtzar]

Same issue. Fresh/default install of Docker Desktop, Version 2.0.0.3 (31259) on brand new 2018 MBP with MacOS 10.14.3 (18D109).

With no containers running, the Activity Monitor averages the following:

• Energy Impact: com.docker.supervisor: ~7
• CPU: com.docker.hyperkit: ~5%
• Memory: com.docker.hyperkit: ~2.79 GB

Drained my battery 12% while computer was sleeping overnight.

Diagnose ID: BCCE2746-C07F-44C7-B298-5AD9385CE43C/20190322144202

[evanmcclure]

I guess the only thing we can do is to turn off Docker for Mac when it's not in use. It's not the best solution, but it seems to be the only thing we can do until Docker finally fixes the issue.

[docker-robott]

Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity.
Mark the issue as fresh with /remove-lifecycle stale comment.
Stale issues will be closed after an additional 30d of inactivity.

Prevent issues from auto-closing with an /lifecycle frozen comment.

If this issue is safe to close now please do so.

Send feedback to Docker Community Slack channels #docker-for-mac or #docker-for-windows.
/lifecycle stale

[astyagun]

/remove-lifecycle stale
/lifecycle frozen

[drdaz]

I upgraded to Catalina this afternoon.

At the risk of jinxing it, Docker's Energy Impact has been idle pretty close to 0 for the past hour or so, despite actually having a few containers running.

🤞🏼

[astyagun]

Energy impact may be smaller for me now, but it's still not at zero. It's a bit more hidden in Catalina now, need to open triangles on the left to see it:

[drdaz]

Unfortunately I've had to restore to Mojave since Catalina KPs when 2 external monitors are attached.

But CPU usage for hyperkit also seemed consistently lower in Catalina; not 0, but low. Like 3-4% of 1 core running 4 containers. I felt ok with that.

Btw, doesn't it seem like a bug that a subprocess can have an energy impact of 2.9 while the spawning process sits at 0? EDIT: Or does the umbrella process weight the underlying ones somehow? 🤷🏽‍♂️

[lionello]

YMMV, but I got some success by changing two settings: changed number of CPUs down to 2 and changed debug setting to false (both can be done in the settings pages). This seems to have stopped the crazy energy use:

[evanmcclure]

Excellent! I’ll try it out. Thanks for the note.

…

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 5, 2020, at 1:35 AM, Lio李欧 ***@***.***> wrote:  YMMV, but I got some success by changing two settings: changed number of CPUs down to 2 and changed debug setting to false (both can be done in the settings pages). This seems to have stopped the crazy energy use: — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.

[nicc777]

YMMV, but I got some success by changing two settings: changed number of CPUs down to 2 and changed debug setting to false (both can be done in the settings pages). This seems to have stopped the crazy energy use:

Can confirm this worked for me.

[stalkerg]

I have same problem even on linux directly. conteinerd do something constantly.

[thiagofigueiro]

YMMV, but I got some success by changing two settings: changed number of CPUs down to 2 and changed debug setting to false (both can be done in the settings pages). This seems to have stopped the crazy energy use:

On Catalina 10.15.6 and docker desktop 2.3.0.4 (46911), Engine 19.03.12.

Making the above changes had no results. com.docker.hyperkit still oscillates between 40 and 70.